Will the Anglican circle remain unbroken? (no spam)

[fable]

In 2003, the US communion of the Anglican Church backed the appointment of an openly gay priest, Gene Robinson, as bishop in New Hampshire. Since that time, the Anglicans have been fiercely split over the matter. The more conservative parts of the Church, mostly in Africa and South America, have threatened to split off if the decision was allowed to stand by the primates. This also applies to small splinter groups in the US; while in the UK, the split has widened divisions in a church that isn't so much moderate as previously willing to tolerate a breadth of religious stance, from extremely liberal to extremely conservative.

The Anglicans have tried to put the issue aside in the hopes that time alone would heal matters--what I've heard Anglican friends refer to jokingly as "Anglican fudge." But that hasn't worked here, and now the Anglican Communion of Primates have issued a communique as follows:L

"We request that the Episcopal Church (US) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)."

If this is accepted, the US and Canadian branches of the Anglicans would no longer be full members of the communion. It is an act of disciplining, and seen rightly, I think, as a victory for the conservatives among the Anglican Church in claiming to define it. And it could mark the beginning of a complete split between the two groups.

I have to give the Anglicans credit, whatever the jokes about fudging, for having honestly tried to make sense of issues that other churches simply paper over with dogma set by people living in the MidEast 1800 year ago. They've openly accepted women as ministers, taking the loss of arch-conservative ones who have gone to the RCC. But this is a far more serious division. What's your reaction to the communique? And what steps if any do you think could heal over the rift within the Anglican Church?

[Macleod1701]

I've heard about this on the news but only know briefly what is going on, can some body explain to me in very simple terms whats going on, as seeing as I don't beleive in god and don't have a religion, (except worshipping myself and cats) my knowledge is mostly based around rude jokes.
So any enlightenment would be appreciated.

[fable]

What would you like to know? I'm willing to offer information, but I don't want to treat you like someone who knows nothing. The Anglican Church was the one formed in opposition to the RCC in England, during the years of the early Tudors. It's a sort of halfway house between Catholicism and Protestantism. Henry VIII decided to make it *the* national church when the RCC refused to grant him a divorce. Leaving aside all the political aspects of the Church in earlier ages, of late it's become known for being about as close to Roman Catholicism as you can get while remaining relatively "democratic." Each nation with a large Anglican population chooses its own primate. They follow transubstatiation (you know--wafer and wine, body and blood of Christ) thing, and their service is not dissimilar to the RCC in many respects, but it's entirely in the native language of the local country. Each diocese has considerable interaction with its hierarchy. Politically, it's been left-of-center and socially active. One of its high ranking members was extremely important in securing the release of American hostages held in Iran back in the late 1970s and early 80s, and was himself held as a hostage for a couple of years.

Does that help? And does anybody want to add anything else?

[Macleod1701]

Yeah that does help thanks, and don't worry about making it simple, when it comes to religion the simpler the better. So what is the reason behind and consequence of whats going on at the moment cause from what I gathered it was mostly about whether or not to allow gay priests?! And if that's so why are they splitting?

[FweL]

If you ask me allow there be gay priest's.

[Macleod1701]

Fewl if you're going to contribute please make it relevant, I wasn't asking if they should be allowed or not.

[fable]

The Anglicans have allowed gay priests for some time. The problem is that Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, was chosen as Anglican bishop for New Hampshire. I suppose the Anglican conservatives were willing to swallow the sexual orientation issue at the grassroots level, ignoring it. But at the level of bishop, some members of the hierarchy are extremely put out. They say the Bible insists homosexuality is wrong, and some of the African bishops (in nations where Anglican Christianity is the dominant version of the religion) have literally threatened to take their Churches outside the communion if Robinson wasn't removed.

[FweL]

And there is also thing in bible where Jesus says that bad and good people will be together untill world ends. Then bad people will end up in hell and good people will go to heaven. Atleast it went like that, not sure about translation though.

Then i would like to remind that both parts of bible were written by human. Then as you know if someone tells something to other person, that other person will change little bit of what original person told and it took quite long before there were books.

[fable]

FweL, I suspect this is one of those matters where many people who follow the Bible insist upon their interpretation of it as the Official Version, and also insist (as many Christians do, and always have) that it is directly inspired by god. So much can be read one way or the other into any book of this sort, that it easily provides fuel for controversy. If you or I were to say, "The Bible was edited, censored, altered, and compiled over several thousand years," the answer would be, "Yes, and all of those decisions, even the unethical ones, were inspired by God to produce the finished work we now have."

Faced with this logical loop, I have no reply. But what should be done when you have a Church split down the middle, with good will but diametrically opposed views on either side?

[FweL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Faced with this logical loop, I have no reply. But what should be done when you have a Church split down the middle, with good will but diametrically opposed views on either side?

I wouldn't say that it is bad thing. It has happened quite many times now.

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I suppose the Anglican conservatives were willing to swallow the sexual orientation issue at the grassroots level, ignoring it. But at the level of bishop, some members of the hierarchy are extremely put out. They say the Bible insists homosexuality is wrong, and some of the African bishops (in nations where Anglican Christianity is the dominant version of the religion) have literally threatened to take their Churches outside the communion if Robinson wasn't removed.

I find this slightly befuddling. I mean, I can understand if they said they didn't want homosexual people in the clergy, full stop, because the Bible says it is wrong. (Note - I'm not saying I agree with that, before anyone accuses me.) But to put up with it at one level in the clergy, but not at a higher level seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Surely if there is enough support for a gay man to be a member of the clergy, it shouldn't make any difference at what level. What are they saying, "It's ok if your local priest is gay, but not the bishop?" What kind of logic is that? And now you will point out that religion isn't logical... which is fair comment.

Another strange thing is that the Church in the UK appointed a gay bishop a while ago, but he felt he had to step down. Now they have such a problem because the US Church did the same thing?

[fable]

The gay UK bishop (good catch) stepped down on his own, but the US bishop hasn't. As for the primates in general accepting gay ministers but not gay bishops--I think it's less a matter of hypocrisy than moderate compromise, which the Anglicans historically have tried to use on all occasions. We all make compromises with our strongly held views in various ways. You may believe strongly in a certain policy at work, but have to give way on it for the good of the team, or to gather your influence for other battles. Without meaning to sound like an Anglican apologist (which is pretty funny, when you think of it), I suspect something like that is at work, here. Unlike many Churches (such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Jews) that have split into separate Churches when they disagreed upon important issues, the Anglicans try to calm things down and hold everything together.

[jopperm2]

I'm not particularly sure about whether or not there will be a split, but what I don't understand is this. Assuming the bible condemns homosexuality as they are claiming(I personally don't think this is the case, nor do I think the bible is authoritative or completely inspired by the divine, though I technically claim Christianity), then wouldn't only the act of sex be condemnable? The church claims that all sins are evil and therefore daydreaming about sex with a boy is as bad as sex with a girl. That leads me to believe that none of the people that are gay priests actually have committed the "sin" of homosexuality. Now, I don't know too much of these people, but I don't think any of them are sexually active. Anyway. That's my guess and take on things.

[giles337]

Personally, I can't see the Anglican Church not splitting over this, however long it take. There will always be enough bleeding hearts, preaching their missionary conception of things, down from their crucifix. There are chrisitans, and then there are christians. By which I mean those christians who are tolerant, and semi-"religious" and those who use "religion" as an excuse for their intolerance. And unfortunately, while this is the situation, it is, IMHO at least, immosible for the Anglican church to stay as one.

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable The gay UK bishop (good catch) stepped down on his own, but the US bishop hasn't.

Yes, and that was sort of my point - the Church didn't have a problem with appointing him, but he felt pressured to step down - if he had wanted to stay, then one presumes the Church, having appointed him, would have supported him. Yet they still complain about the ordination of a gay bishop in the US.

Quote:

As for the primates in general accepting gay ministers but not gay bishops--I think it's less a matter of hypocrisy than moderate compromise, which the Anglicans historically have tried to use on all occasions. We all make compromises with our strongly held views in various ways. You may believe strongly in a certain policy at work, but have to give way on it for the good of the team, or to gather your influence for other battles. Without meaning to sound like an Anglican apologist (which is pretty funny, when you think of it), I suspect something like that is at work, here. Unlike many Churches (such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Jews) that have split into separate Churches when they disagreed upon important issues, the Anglicans try to calm things down and hold everything together.

I suppose the problem I have with it really is that since the Bible is supposed to be the word of God etc etc, why they can't agree over whether or not it's ok to be gay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 That leads me to believe that none of the people that are gay priests actually have committed the "sin" of homosexuality. Now, I don't know too much of these people, but I don't think any of them are sexually active. Anyway. That's my guess and take on things.

This angle is interesting too. I note Gene Robinson is always described as the first "openly gay" bishop. One wonders how many there are (if not bishops, at least clergymen) who are gay, but are scared to come out because it would damage their prospects. As you say, it really has little relevance, because they would be celibate anyway, so surely gay clergy should be celebrated for being honest about it, rather than penalised for telling the truth when they could probably get away with not admitting to being gay.